D.o.F:30/11/2013

D.o.O:13/2/2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.279/13

                  Dated this, the 13^th     day of January 2014

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI             : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

Nizar, S/o Abdulla.C.H,

R/at Kollampady House,Kollampady road,                                 :  Complainant

Kasaragod Kasba Po, Kasaragod.

(Adv.Naveen S.N,Kasaragod)

1.The Manager,

M/s APCO Automobiles Pvt.Ltd,                                      :

Opp. Apco Hyundai ,Indira Nagar,

Kasaragod.

2.The Manager

              M/s APCO Automobiles Pvt.Ltd,

             Thottada, Kannur .                                                               :             Opposite Parties

3. M/s APCO Automobiles Pvt.Ltd,

3/447 B, Meenchanda, Nallalam Po, Calicut 673027.  :

4.The Regional Manager

Regional Office, Tata Motors, LBS Marg,                       :

Wagle Estate,  Thane 400 604.

(Exparte)

                                                                                      ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI     : PRESIDENT

  The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

    That the complainant purchased a Tata Ace goods vehicle from opposite party on 4/1/2013 which was registered as KL 14-M 7096 and the same is hypothecated to the  Cholamandalam Investment  Finance Co.Ltd and the complainant  is purchased the vehicle for his livelihood and after I st service on 2/5/2013 there was a major complaint in the engine of the said vehicle and hence the complainant was constrained to  place the same under  2^nd opposite party for repair and during the first  week of July 2013 and after 4 days the vehicle  was delivered to the complainant by stating that the complaints  have been sorted out and in spite of the alleged repair the said vehicle had a manufacturing defect and hence the complainant could not ply the vehicle and then again the complaint placed the vehicle for repair under  Ist opposite party and it was delivered back to complainant after 5 days but the defect was not cured and he again given the vehicle for repair to 2^nd opposite party on 7/11/13 and after repair the  2^nd opposite party given the vehicle to the complainant on 22/11/13 and the  complainant received under protest and thereafter also the complainant could not ply the vehicle peacefully and he is not earning anything out of the vehicle and he constrained to pay the loan instalments and due to the defect he could not ply the vehicle and often he kept the vehicle  without use  for weeks thereby he suffered mentally and financially and the complainant purchased the vehicle only in attraction of the advertisements of opposite parties but after the purchase of the vehicle the complainant came to know that the vehicle has no standard as  stated in the advertisement.  Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service   and unfair trade practice against opposite parties.

    The opposite parties duly served the notice and not turned up.  Name of all opposite parties called absent and set exparte.

   The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A13 marked.  Upon hearing the learned counsel for complainant and on going through the documents it reveals that the vehicle has got  inherent defects  As per Ext.A13 the  opposite parties admitted all those defects which are mentioned in the complaint .  On going through the entire facts of the case it appear that the vehicle has got  many defects including engine defects within short period of its purchase.  The vehicle is not a defect free one.  Here the opposite party is failed to give after sale service to its customers.  Moreover the complainant  purchased the vehicle on attraction of the advertisement of the vehicle.  But after purchase he came to know that the vehicle is not a standard vehicle as stated in the advertisement.  Misleading advertisement amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite parties failed to produce any contra evidence before  the Forum. Hence we are of the opinion that even though there is no expert report to prove the engine of the vehicle has got manufacturing defect, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the engine of the vehicle has manufacturing defect and since the vehicle has continuous repair and the complainant is mentally and financially suffered much.  Hence we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the replacement of engine of the vehicle.

   Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to replace the entire engine of the vehicle with a new one  with one year guarantee and opposite parties  further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Time for compliance is  30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  If the opposite parties  are failed to replace the engine within the stipulated time the opposite parties are directed to pay the  value of the  subject matter of the vehicle of Rs.3,45,000/- to the complainant by receiving their defective vehicle.

Exts:

A1-Copy of RC

A2-Proforma invoice

A3&A5- Tax invoice

A4-copy of  Acknowledgment

A6-lawyer notice

A7 series –postal acknowledgments

A8- repayment schedule

A9- SB Pass book

A10&A11-Ancillary  Referral Form

A12- Acknowledgment

A13- Office copy of lawyer notice

MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

eva